Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
EDA Agenda 03-11-2015
EDA MEETING Wednesday, March 11th, 2015 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN EDA Workshop - 2015 EDA Work Plan Academy Room 4:30 PM Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Tracy Hinz, James Davidson, Steve Johnson and Council members Tom Perrault and Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Executive Director Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Approve Meeting Minutes: a. Special EDA Meeting - February 11th, 2015 b. Regular EDA Meeting - February 1 lth, 2015 4. Consideration of additional agenda items. 5. Consideration of approving payment of bills. 6. Consideration to accept into the record a statement of Conflict of Interest by Commissioner Steve Johnson. 7. Consideration to adopt a Resolution for Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. 8. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding the contract for the abatement and demolition of the building located at 100 Broadway East. 9. Consideration of Director's Report. 10. Adjourn. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, February 1111, 2015 - 4 PM Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Tracy Hinz, Jim Davidson, Lloyd Hilgart, Steve Johnson, Tom Perrault Absent: None Others: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann 1. Call to order Bill Demeules called the special meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. 2. Purpose The purpose of the workshop is to develop the 2015 EDA Workplan. 3. Consideration of Workplan Goals and Obiectives Angela Schumann noted that the EDA had participated in a workshop to discuss ideas and priorities for 2014 but had not formally adopted a work plan for last year. She suggested that the EDA reflect on its 2013 workplan and other related resource documents as a framework for developing the 2015 workplan. She noted that the City's Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan outlines broad goal categories and related goal statements previously established by the EDA. She suggested reviewing these goals as well as those included as part of EDA's policies related to business retention and expansion and redevelopment. Schumann asked the EDA to consider if they intend to be proactive or reactive as a body and that they prioritize the goals included in the workplan. Bill Demeules suggested that the EDA must be both proactive and reactive depending upon circumstances. Lloyd Hilgart suggested that the EDA can be as proactive as there are funds available. Schumann suggested that staffing availability is a key consideration as well. Bill Demeules noted that a housing component had not been included as part of the 2013 workplan and that there is TIF money available that can only be used for housing. Jeff O'Neill summarized that staff had done a great job of reacting to immediate needs to keep development processes moving along. He pointed out however that, due to limits to staff time, it has been extremely difficult to also be proactive in addressing development goals. He asked that the EDA to review the benefit of the Market Matching services contract which expires in June. Special EDA Minutes: 02/11/15 Bill Tapper suggested that the EDA should decide if Market Matching is working and to what degree it is working. He also wondered what a new contract would cost and if WSB would still be interested in contracting. There was significant discussion related to the difficulty of measuring the success of the outreach and prospecting component of the contract especially as the economic climate has only recently begun to improve. Johnson suggested that the EDA was getting its money's worth in terms of WSB handling updating marketing materials and paying for the cost of dues and memberships. He pointed out that John Uphoff was still learning how to sell Monticello and that this networking lays the foundation for selling Monticello in future. Schumann noted that it takes staff time to manage the contract. There was some discussion related to perhaps finetuning expectations, especially as related to deliverables within a revised contract. Jim Davidson suggested the option of paying on a commission basis for the lead generation component of any future contract. Johnson suggested that additional staff assistance might come in the form of an ombudsman position to interface between the city hall and businesses to help solve issues. Lloyd Hilgart indicated that he felt the EDA should discuss the EDA Director position because it doesn't make sense to set goals if there isn't the manpower to achieve them. Tracy Hinz asked if there was money in the budget for a position. She indicated that she'd lean toward hiring a full time EDA Director. Demeules suggested that the position may need only be part -time. O'Neill suggested that it would have to be budgeted for 2016. Schumann noted that the Admin Assistant position has now evolved to more of a technician for Community Development. She said that the position would assist with handling some of the administrative tasks related to economic development in future as well. Schumann pointed out that the IEDC is a supporting organization with similar goals. There was some discussion related to efforts to more visibly connect staff with existing businesses. Tapper acknowledged that the EDA had been underfunding the process for the last couple of years and that they are not real satisfied with the results. Hilgart made the distinction that the EDA would not be asking for additional staff but rather asking to replace the staff they had lost. 2 Special EDA Minutes: 02/11/15 Tom Perrault said that he'd considered possibly going month to month with Market Matching after this contract ends. He wondered if Market Matching had produced anything that increased the City's tax base. There was some discussion about the role of property owners themselves in bringing retail businesses. O'Neill pointed out that the City had set the stage for future retail development by planning for it by in specific locations. There was significant discussion related to the unrealistic expectations as to how much it would cost to redevelop downtown and how to pay for it. O'Neill suggested that City has a huge opportunity to do some housekeeping and prepare to better the future. He suggested exploring all of the possibilities related to accessing funds to shape the community. O'Neill pointed out there is a return on the investment in terms of improving the tax base. Schumann asked what kind of resources staff might provide to help the EDA make a case to the City Council. Demeules suggested the EDA look at the various alternatives available to finance redevelopment projects. There was some discussion related to options to bond, to levy or use tax abatement strategies. Jim Davidson pointed to the need for citizen buy in as to what may be planned for Block 34, why the property may sit empty for some time, and how redevelopment may be funded. Tracy Hinz asked about process. O'Neill said that the EDA would have to pass a resolution identifying a funding strategy for moving forward with downtown redevelopment by June in order for it to affect taxes next year. Schumann summarized that the EDA seems to be in general agreement that, though all of its redevelopment goals are important, funding does not currently exist to do the work. She suggested that the EDA may wish to direct staff to report back with research related to financing strategies including, but not limited to bonding, levying authority, tax abatement, and existing resources. Schumann also indicated that the EDA may find it useful to review examples of how comparable communities have utilized such tools for redevelopment and to consider real cost analyses on a block by block basis. Schumann also encouraged the EDA to obtain City Council input in a workshop format. Hinz suggested that the EDA identify those 2013 workplan goals that had been addressed. As related to EDA's goal of attracting & retaining jobs, Hinz pointed out that that the EDA chose to contract for Market Matching services rather than hire an Economic Development Sales (and Marketing) position. There were questions as to whether or not the contract successfully acts as primary outreach in developing and fostering lead opportunities outside of Monticello. Schumann noted that the EDA Special EDA Minutes: 02/11/15 frequently refers to the McCombs study and analysis for benefit of redevelopment opportunities as had been identified in the workplan. Hinz pointed out that there had been an effort made to address the EDA's goal to develop the needed and necessary marketing materials for City and EDA properties. There was some discussion about the process for posting property for sale for development signs at 413 4th Street, the Cedar Street Garden Center and the Fred's Auto site. O'Neill will check with City Council about also obtaining signage for the vacant lot across River Street. O'Neill asked for input related to the EDA's goal related to existing City development staff continuing to implement efforts to recognize and support existing Monticello businesses. Johnson emphasized that communication is key to improving perception. Schumann pointed out that the IEDC's roundtable discussions provide an opportunity for staff to share development information and get a read on topics of relevance in the business community. Staff also look to the IEDC for input and assistance in reaching out to the broader community. Schumann pointed out that the EDA had not yet addressed its goal of expanding the tax base by developing a spending plan for the $700,000 in increment remaining in TIF 1 -6. She noted that as an unrestricted, decertified district with no timeframe for utilizing the increment, TIF 1 -6 is a tool in the EDA's toolkit. Tapper also suggested that the EDA could borrow against funds remaining in TIF 1 -5 after the completion of the 7th Street extension project. v Schumann pointed out that the EDA's Redevelopment policy had established focus areas in support of the Enhancing Downtown goal included in the workplan. Tapper noted that the EDA had acted on spending increment from TIF 1 -22. Schumann pointed out that the EDA also has the ability to borrow against future increment in 1 -22. Hinz asked if any TIF districts were due to decertify in 2015 -2016. Schumann said that the Dahlheimer and Walker districts would be coming off the books. She noted that Omdahl is also preparing a memo related to the status of the Landmark Square district. O'Neill suggested that the EDA may want to explore an option to earmark a portion of a decertifying district for a levy to be used for economic development. Schumann also explained that the 2012 TIF management plan is due for revision and that this cost should be included in the 2016 EDA budget. Steve Johnson noted that staff continue to work to address the goal of supporting the efforts of ReSTOREing Downtown by meeting monthly to coordinate activities and address issues. Davidson asked if there is a mechanism for reporting progress. Schumann suggested that updates could be included in the Director's report. Schumann noted that the EDA continues to be mindful of its facilitating redevelopment goal as it considers redevelopment options on properties such as 413 4th Street. Special EDA Minutes: 02/11/15 Hinz noted that the 2013 Housing goal statements were still valid and require attention. Several commissioners expressed interest in making it a priority to develop a spending plan to use available excess increment in existing housing TIF districts and in completing a housing study to determine the need for affordable /senior housing within the community. Hinz suggested inviting Tammy Omdahl from Northland to lead a workshop to explore these issues. O'Neill suggested also reviewing the bottom 2% of the housing stock to determine its potential for redevelopment. Schumann suggested that the EDA schedule an additional workshop to further consider its 2015 workplan. 4. Adjournment BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:48 P.M. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 5 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, February 11t1, 2015, Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Tracy Hinz, Jim Davidson, Steve Johnson, Tom Perrault, Lloyd Hilgart Absent: None Others: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann 1. Call to Order Bill Demeules called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. Special EDA Meeting - December 101h, 2014 BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 10, 2014 SPECIAL EDA MEETING MINUTES AS CORRECTED. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Lloyd Hilgart questioned the phrasing of a statement in the minutes related to the cost of code compliance. Angela Schumann indicated that staff would provide clarification. b. Regular EDA Meeting - December 10th, 2014 TRACY HINZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 10, 2014 REGULAR EDA MEETING MINUTES. TOM PERRAULT AND BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. C. Special EDA Meeting — January 12th, 2015 LLOYD HILGART MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 12TU, 2015 SPECIAL EDA MEETING MINUTES. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. (Bill Tapper abstained as he had not attended the meeting.) d. Regular EDA Meeting — January 14th, 2015 TRACY HINZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 14TH, 2015 1 EDA Minutes: 2/11/15 REGULAR EDA MEETING MINUTES. STEVE JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. (Bill Tapper abstained as he had not attended the meeting.) 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Land use process at 100 East Broadway property (Schumann) Temporary use of 100 E Broadway property (Schumann) Closed meeting related to property purchase (Schumann) 5. Consideration of approving payment of bills BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS THROUGH JANUARY 2015. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Bill Demeules suggested that the EDA revert to its previous policy of providing copies of only the summary statements in an effort to reduce paperwork and staff time involved in preparing the agenda packet. BILL DEMEULES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE ONLY THE BILL SUMMARY STATEMENTS WITH EDA AGENDA PACKETS. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Bill Tapper stated that he likes to see the detail related to consultant fees as these involve substantial amounts of money. Schumann pointed out that staff must redact details related to negotiations involving sale or purchase transactions until these become public information. She suggested that commissioners are welcome to contact staff to review and ask specific questions related to the bills prior to the meeting. There seemed to be general agreement among the commissioners that it was not necessary to provide paper copies of the supporting data as long as the information was available electronically. Steve Johnson suggested emailing the EDA the supporting information rather than posting it on the website. Angela Schumann pointed out that any information emailed to the EDA as a group is considered public information. 6. Wright County Economic Development Partnership Update Director of the Wright County Economic Development Partnership, Duane Northagen provided an overview of current Partnership initiatives and asked for input as to how the organization might serve the Monticello community. Northagen explained that the mission of the Partnership is to create a healthy and diverse environment for existing, expanding and new businesses, which in turn creates employment opportunities, enhances the overall economic vitality of the region thereby benefitting the businesses, communities and citizens of Wright County. EDA Minutes: 2/11/15 Northagen indicated that, although he has been heading up the Partnership for less than a year, he has three decades of experience in economic development initiatives. He acknowledged that it is a challenge for one person to serve 16 communities and 3,000 businesses but pointed out that he partners with regional organizations in an effort to address both public sector and private sector economic development needs. He cited MN DEED, Greater MSP, St. Cloud Development Corporation, the Initiative Foundation and the SW Initiative Fund, Central MN Manufacturing Association (CMMA), Central MN Jobs and Training Office, Economic Development Association of Minnesota (EDAM), and Minnesota Association of Professional County Economic Developers (MAPCED), as some examples of such resources. Northagen noted that, as a Small Business Development Center (SBDC) counselor for the Wright County satellite office, he has assisted 15 clients seeking financial resources and enabled three businesses to obtain loans. He and other SBDC representatives asked legislators to support area policy platforms related to infrastructure, broadband, workforce development during the recent Economic Development Day at the Capitol. Northagen said he had spoken to 40 -50 leads about relocating to Wright County. He said that the Partnership had hired a consultant to assist with updating the member directory on the website and to establish a regular newsletter. He emphasized that he would continue to grow the effort to market Wright County's expanding manufacturing base and talented workforce. Northagen shared that the Partnership also supports the national Creating Entrepreneurial Opportunities (CEO) program designed to engage students in obtaining school credit and starting a business. Angela Schumann noted that School Superintendent Jim Johnson suggested that IEDC members get involved with the program because they bring real world experience to support the entrepreneurial expertise provided by Wright Technical. Steve Johnson asked how Northagen measures success. Northagen stated that he plans to incorporate formal tools to track progress within the year. Lloyd Hilgart asked if there had been any inquiries related to solar panels. Northagen said that there had not been but noted that he is familiar with issues surrounding solar energy and offered to write letters to the legislature in support of Monticello's policies. 7. Consideration to Adopt a Letter of TIF Analysis Findings for 100 Broadway Street East, Monticello, Minnesota, dated December 2, 2014, and to Adopt Resolution EDA- 2015 -002 Desi2natin2 a Building as Structurally Substandard Within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Angela Schumann summarized that the EDA had previously reviewed and accepted LHB's Analysis Findings report indicating that the property located at 100 Broadway Street East meets qualification requirements for a redevelopment or renovation and renewal Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. She explained that the EDA must formally adopt a Letter of TIF Analysis Findings related to that property evaluation EDA Minutes: 2/11/15 before demolition of the structure and prior to creation of a new TIF district. She also recommended that the EDA also adopt a resolution declaring the building located at 100 East Broadway to be structurally substandard based on those findings. Decision 1: Adopt Letter of Findings BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT A LETTER OF TIF ANALYSIS FINDINGS FOR 100 BROADWAY STREET EAST, MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DATED DECEMBER 2, 2014. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Decision 2: Adopt Resolution EDA- 2015 -002 BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION EDA- 2015 -002, DESIGNATING A BUILDING AS STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1. STEVE JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Tom Perrault asked about pro -rated valuation. Schumann explained that valuation is determined at the time of certification of filing and that road right -of -way would already have been conveyed to MNDot at that time. She offered to confirm that any increase in value would relate only to the balance of the property. Perrault also asked that the description of designated property in Exhibit A be corrected to read 100 Broadway Street East. Schumann indicated that she would check the title work to verify the legal street name. 8. Added items Land use process at 100 East Broadway property (Schumann) — Angela Schumann asked that the EDA authorize staff to submit a land use application on behalf of the EDA as property owner to combine Lots 14 & 15 on Block 34, Original Plat of Monticello, and to subdivide the portion of the property needed for future right -of -way purposes. Schumann also requested EDA authorization to work with Kennedy & Graven, the City Engineer, and MnDOT to prepare documents related to conveyance of that portion of property to MnDOT. Schumann pointed out that the EDA is required to hold a public hearing for any conveyance of its property. BILL TAPPER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO COMBINE LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 34, ORIGINAL PLAT OF MONTICELLO, AND SUBDIVIDE THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY NEEDED FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY PURPOSES. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. BILL TAPPER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS 4 EDA Minutes: 2/11/15 RELATED TO CONVEYING THE SUBDIVIDED PORTION OF COMBINED LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 34, NEEDED FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY TO MNDOT. TRACY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Temporary use of 100 E Broadway property (Schumann) - Angela Schumann reported that the City's liaison from the Wright County Sheriff's Office, Sargent Anderson, and Canine Officer Sargent Cotton (and dog "Saber ") had requested the temporary use of the building located at 100 East Broadway for canine unit training purposes. Schumann pointed out that the EDA's recommendation would move forward for City Council consideration. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOW THE WRIGHT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO UTILIZE THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 100 EAST BROADWAY FOR CANINE UNIT TRAINING CONTINGENT UPON VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AS APPROPRIATE. BILL TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. • Closed meeting related to property purchase (Schumann) - Angela Schumann reported that she'd received a letter from a property owner asking that the EDA consider acquiring the property. BILL DEMEULES MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A CLOSED EDA MEETING TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION REQUEST PRIOR TO MARCH 11, 2015 REGULAR EDA MEETING. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. 9. Consideration of Director's Report Lloyd Hilgart asked about participation in the upcoming State of the Cities event. Jeff O'Neill indicated that the City of Monticello had participated last year and would do so again next year. O'Neill reported that staff plan to schedule a tour of the City in an effort to orient new commissioners. Details will be provided as they become available. 10. Adiournment BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:04 PM. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: Attest: EDA Representative EDA Agenda: 3/11/15 5. Consideration of approving payment of bills (WO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Invoices submitted during the previous month are included for review and consideration. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve payment of bills through February 2015. 2. Motion to approve the payment of bills through February 2015 with changes directed by the EDA. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of payment for invoices submitted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Invoices o b 4 a O z 0 a 0 O z d r� V O A F� Ci O r:+ U A O I O O I O O I O h I h I O I O O O 00 00 O O \O \O h h O O 06 06 o o o 0 0 0 00 00 01 C, N N h h M M N N n n M M 01 C, N N 01 01 01 01 M O M M M O O O M O o O a1 O o O o a1 v v T a1 a1 Ct PLO P U -0 ti o No ri o 00 0 O N O O N 0 O N � v z U oi 0 U a � O I O O I O O I O h I h I O I O O O 00 00 O O \O \O h h O O 06 06 o o o 0 0 0 00 00 01 C, N N h h M M N N n n M M 01 C, N N 01 01 01 01 M O M M M O O O M o 0 O o O a1 O a1 o O o a1 v v a1 a1 a1 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N 0 O N N N 0 0 0 0 o N v v N v v v Q Q Q Q Q Q W W W W W W cad cad cad O cad 00 cad.' cad O O O U O O 4 t lu C cad .U. U p l M M lu M W N W x z z x o a o 0 O o O a1 O a1 o O o a1 v v a1 a1 a1 v v v v v v N 0 0 0 0 o N v v v v v v ti ti ti ti ti ti N N N N N N a G f' 7 O M O O 0 a 0 O z 0 a 0 0 z U d d r.+ O A C7 0 G�. U d A i. O C." i i. z 0 U N II N �lw 'O O O w w Eo 0 0 a a N 1 O Q r 0 N 7 N N C T U N a G f' 7 O M O N 0 N 0 0 0 U O U h a O 0 bA Cs� a O O O \O \O O O O O 00 00 O O O O O O 01 01 Cl) Cl) \O \O 00 00 O O LL obQ O O m rool r V O O O O O 00 r.+ O O O O O O O O A N 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 a N p M M N N N N N N N N N N Q Q Q Q Q Q W W W W W W R � w O � CD O O O U O O cl Q M t O O � bA � .O O h O \p N w � A h w ti N U z o a u h x o o x a a, 0 N a CC" a, o �. c� Ct U o No U N 0 � o o °O z o O O O O O O a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 0 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 � p ° M v o N M M M M M U Z N v v v v v v O o y o CD CD CD CD CD CD U n o °O O z 0 a C, O o z d � L. O O A N N C7 N 0 0 G�. U d A 0 Eq i. d z 0 U N w 0 N ti U z W h U W Q z a x h x 0 z O N N v a Q w° ct 0 a 0 0 M_ N G w w° 0 a 0 h 0 a C CN C T `o 0 O Q Q N T Q � � O O Q = Q 0 E _ \ N U N (h Q � o N 7 U) N N C S U m H N a G f' P. C, O N O N 0 0 U O h a O z 0 a y O L ob m rool r V O z U d d A C7 0 a A 0 i. z 0 U 00 00 N N N N O n O O N O N �p N � o Q w° o a o z a 0 U h P. W �i P. �i U z CD C, 0 0 v O O O o N N N m v' N � Q w° v � 0 o � N o Ur" Q 0 Q U h P. W �i P. �i U z CD O N v M I I M 'O O w .. � y w° Eo 0 0 a a a a � o Ct U Ca o 0 ^ N �i O U o oi a 0 a A 0 i. z 0 U 00 00 N N N N O n O O N O N �p N � o Q w° o a o z a 0 U h P. W �i P. �i U z CD C, 0 0 v O O O o N N N m v' N � Q w° v � 0 o � N o Ur" Q 0 Q U h P. W �i P. �i U z CD O N v M I I M 'O O w .. � y w° Eo 0 0 a a a U) N C T U a M M 'p O � N 1 00 Q Q N o Q � L o U r co O O m � o h O z 0 a y O L ob ■ rool H C� z ° U d d � L. A O N a 0 N � o ° Q w° ct 0 a 0 0 N 00 O Cl) to N O O � GL � vi Q N C7 �i W z � w O' W d v Ct U Ca o 0 M � /� N w Q O O o o y N II M_ N G w .. w Eo 0 O a a a N 7 N N C T U -6 0 o � � o Q N Q o L m o co O co N � o 0 h EDA Agenda: 3/11/15 6. Consideration to accept into the record a statement of Conflict of Interest Disclosure by Commissioner Steve Johnson. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Commissioner Steve Johnson has submitted a statement of disclosure regarding possible conflict of interest to be entered into the EDA's formal record. The submission of the statement and disclosure is in recognition of Minnesota Statues 469.098 governing local economic development authorities, the "EDA Act ". B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to accept the Conflict of interest Certification and Disclosure by Commissioner Steve Johnson and to enter said statement and acceptance into the minutes of the Economic Development Authority. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Conflict of Interest Certification and Disclosure Form, Steve Johnson B. MN Statue 469.098 Conflict -of- Interest Certification and Disclosure Form. Name: Steven C. Johnson Position: EDA Commissioner Date: 2 -23 -15 By signing this form below, I certify that: 1. I have received a copy Minnesota Statute 469.098 Conflict -Of- Interest 2. I have read and understand the policy; 3. I agree to comply with the policy; Wn, I MET", • 1 i Please describe below any relationships, transactions, positions you hold (volunteer or otherwise), or circumstances that you believe could contribute to an actual or possible conflict of interest between the EDA and your personal interests, financial or otherwise: 1. I own commercial property on Block 52 in the downtown area of Monticello, MN. 2. A potential conflict may arise with ownership of downtown commercial property (Block 52) and my responsibilities in regards to my position of commissioner on the Monticello EDA. 3. 1 will refrain from any official discussion, decisions, votes or any matter before the EDA that would have financial implications regarding my holdings on Block 52 in downtown Monticello. 4. When addressing by any means potential development or financial matters regarding Block 52, i will be representing in whole or in part, my own interests in this block as a private citizen and not any public interests of the City of Monticello or the Monticello EDA. I hereby certify that the information set forth above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signatur . Date: a ` °L3—/_5 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 469.098 469.098 CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Subdivision 1. Disclosure; criminal penalty. (a) Before taking an action or making a decision which could substantially affect the commissioner's or an employee's financial interests or those of an organization with which the commissioner or an employee is associated, a commissioner or employee of an authority shall: (1) prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of interest; and (2) submit the statement to the commissioners of the authority. (b) The disclosure under paragraph (a) shall be entered upon the minutes of the authority at its next meeting. The disclosure statement must be submitted no later than one week after the employee or com- missioner becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest. However, no disclosure statement is required if the effect on the commissioner or employee of the decision or act will be no greater than on other members of the business, profession, or occupation or if the effect on the organization with which the commissioner or employee is affiliated is indirect, remote, and insubstantial. (c) A potential conflict of interest is present if the commissioner or employee knows or has reason to know that the organization with which the commissioner or employee is affiliated is, or is reasonably likely to become, a participant in a project or development which will be affected by the action or decision. (d) Any individual who knowingly fails to submit a statement required by this subdivision or submits a statement which the individual knows contains false information or omits required information is guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. Effect of disclosure; criminal penalty. (a) If an employee has a potential conflict of interest, the employee's superior shall immediately assign the matter to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest. (b) A commissioner who has a potential conflict of interest shall not attempt to influence an employee in any matter related to the action or decision in question, shall not take part in the action or decision, and shall not be counted toward a quorum during the portion of any meeting of the authority in which the action or decision is to be considered. (c) Any individual who knowingly violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Conflicts forbidden; criminal penalty. A commissioner or employee of an authority who knowingly takes part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in the commissioner's or employee's official capacity in which the commissioner or employee has a personal financial interest is guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 4. Agent or attorney. For one year after termination of a position as a commissioner or employee of an authority, no former commissioner or former employee of an authority shall appear personally before any court or governmental department or agency as agent or attorney for anyone other than the authority in connection with any proceeding, application, request for ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the authority is substantially interested, and with respect to which the commissioner or employee took any action or made any decision as a commissioner or employee of the authority at any time within a period of one year prior to the termination of that position. Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 469.098 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 Subd. 5. Limitations. With respect to each program established by the authority to provide financial assistance or financing for real property otherthan rental assistance programs, an employee or commissioner may not receive such financial assistance or financing more than once. Subd. 6. Injunction. The county attorney may seek an injunction in the district court to enforce the provisions of this section. Subd. 7. Exceptions. The exceptions in section 471.88 apply to this section. History: 1987 c 291 s 99; 2008 c 197 s I Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. EDA Agenda — 03/11/15 7. Consideration to adopt a Resolution for Modification of the Tax Increment. Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. (Northland Securities) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA is asked to consider two options related to resolution approving modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 (TIF36) and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 (TIF37). The EDA adopted Resolution No. 2014 -096 on October 8, 2014. Among other things, the resolution approved modification of TIF36 and TIF37. The modification, as approved, was essentially housekeeping in nature and consisted of the adjustment of line items within the district budgets to reflect actual transactions within the districts, including land acquisition costs, which have occurred in the districts since the time they were originally established. The modification, as approved, provided for decreasing the amounts budgeted for financing cost (interest) and increasing the amounts budgeted for project costs. The total aggregate budget costs, including financing costs, remained unmodified and therefore no public hearing was scheduled. It is important to note that projects within each of these districts have received certificates of completion, and no additional expenditures were, or are, anticipated, outside of administrative costs. In December 2014, city staff received notice from the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA) that it finds the modification, as approved, to be acceptable but that notice and public hearing are required. The OSA finds that notice and public hearing is required because the total aggregate budgeted costs of the TIF district increase, if the reduction to financing costs is not included. The EDA has two options to proceed, as outlined below: Option A (Public Hearing): a) The EDA will call for the City Council to notice and hold a public hearing on the modification of TIF36 and TIF37 b) EDA staff will provide written notice and copy of the proposed modification to the County and School at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing. c) City Council will hold the public hearing and consider approving modification. d) EDA will approve the modification. Option B (No Public Hearing): a) The EDA will act to rescind its approval of the prior modifications to TIF 36 and TIF 37 in the prior Resolution No. 2014 -096, but ratify and confirm all other approvals made in the Resolution. b) The EDA will adopt a new resolution approving modification of the TIF Plans for TIF36 and TIF37 that will modify the line item budgets but without increasing the "Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs ". EDA Agenda — 03/11/15 c) In April, the EDA will act to decertify TIF 37 (with a 12/31/2014 effective date) and to decertify TIF 36 (with a 12/31/2015 effective date). In considering the two options, staff offers the following additional information to inform the EDA's decision: Option A (Public Hearing): This option will satisfy the OSA requirement for notice and hearing and allow the EDA to approve (ratify) the modification to TIF36 and TIF37 as previously adopted by Resolution No. 2014 -096 in October 2014. The process will require submitting letters and the proposed modified TIF Plans to the County and School with a 30 -day review period. Notification of hearing will be published in the newspaper. The process will require staff hours and the EDA will incur consultant fees. Option B (No Public Hearing): This option will satisfy the OSA requirement, but will not allow for the modification as previously authorized by Resolution No. 2014 -096. Without notice and public hearing, the EDA does not have the authority to reduce the budget allowance for financing costs in order to increase the budget allowance for proj ect costs. The financial impact of Option B for TIF37 is $20,000 and there is no financial impact for TIF36. Option B does not provide the budget authority to use tax increment to reimburse the full par amount of the TIF37 interfund loan (for land acquisition) that was approved by the EDA in 2006. There is authority to reimburse $122,113 of the $142,113 interfund loan with tax increment. Al. Budget Impact: There will be additional consultant fees associated with Option A (Alternative 2), related to notice and public hearing process. The expenses will be coded to the EDA general fund. A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff time has been and will continue to be spent in preparing and reviewing documents related to the modification. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt a Resolution Requesting the City Council to Call for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37; or 2. Motion to adopt a Resolution Partially Rescinding Resolution No. 2014 -096 and Approving a Revised Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. C. EDA Agenda — 03/11/15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports Alternative Action No. 2. While Alternative No. 2 will result in the EDA not capturing the maximum amount of tax increment that is available under Alternative No. 1, a benefit of Alternative Action No. 2 is TIF37 will be decertified two years early and the City, County, and School district will directly benefit from an increase in tax base. TIF 37 will be decertified early because final payment on the interfund loan will be August 1, 2014 and there are no other outstanding obligations. Estimated Increase in Local Property Taxes Collected After Decertification D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution EDA- 2015 -003 (for Alternative 1) B. Resolution EDA- 2015 -003 (for Alternative 2) TIF37 TIF36 Total Estimated Decertification date 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 Captured Net Tax Capacity $24,738 $61,902 $86,640 Rates based on Local Tax Rates and Taxes: Pay 2014 County 43.45% $10,749 $26,896 $37,645 City 44.71% $11,060 $27,676 $38,736 School 28.27% $6,993 $17,499 $24,492 Other 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Total 116.43% $28,802 $72,071 $100,873 D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution EDA- 2015 -003 (for Alternative 1) B. Resolution EDA- 2015 -003 (for Alternative 2) CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. EDA- 2015 -003 ACTION NO. 1 REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 -36 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 -37 WHEREAS, the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the "Authority ") proposes the adoption of a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 (together, the "Modification "), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 469.174 to 469.1974 (collectively the "Act "); and WHEREAS, the Authority has investigated the facts relating to the proposed Modification; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREB Y RESOL VED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELL0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY: 1. The Authority hereby requests the City Council to call for a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. Approved by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority this 11th day of March, 2015. President ATTEST: Executive Director EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA HELD: March 11, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, Wright County, Minnesota, was duly held at the Monticello City Hall on Wednesday, the I1t' day of March, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose, in part, of requesting the City Council to call for a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. The following Commissioners were present: and the following were absent: Commissioner moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution and The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Executive Director of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached resolution is a true and correct copy of an extract of minutes of a meeting of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, duly called and held, as such minutes relate to requesting the City Council to call for a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. WITNESS my hand as such Executive Director of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority this 11th day of March, 2015. Executive Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. EDA- 2015 -003 ACTION NO.2 PARTIALLY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2014-096 AND APPROVING A REVISED MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 -36 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 -37 WHEREAS, the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the "Authority ") previously established its Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 (the "TIF Districts ") and approved Tax Increment Financing Plans (the "TIF Plans ") for the TIF Districts, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the "TIF Act "); and WHEREAS, the Authority approved Resolution No, 2014 -096 on October 8, 2014 (the "Prior Resolution"), which among other things authorized budgetary modifications to the TIF Plans resulting in an overall increase in budgeted project costs (the "Prior Modifications "), but has subsequently determined that consideration and approval of the Prior Modifications required publication of a notice of public hearing and the holding of a public hearing on such Prior Modifications; and WHEREAS, the Authority proposes a revised budgetary modification to the TIF Plans for the TIF Districts to reallocate budgetary authority among the project costs authorized in the original budget for the TIF Plans, not including financing (interest) costs to be paid or financed with tax increment (together, the "Modifications "); and WHEREAS, the Authority has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared the Modifications; and WHEREAS, the Authority proposes rescinding its approval of the Prior Modifications in the Prior Resolution, and approving the Modifications, as such Modifications are authorized to be approved without notice and public hearing under Section 469.175, subd. 4 of the TIF Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY OFMONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY.- 1. The Authority hereby rescinds its approval of the Prior Modifications in the Prior Resolution, but ratifies and confirms all other approvals made in the Prior Resolution, including without limitation approval of budgetary modifications to its Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -38. 2. The Authority finds, determines and declares that with respect to the Modifications: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. EDA- 2015 -003 a) The Authority is not modifying the boundaries of the TIF Districts, nor increasing the budget in the Modifications therefor, but is reallocating expenditures among the project costs previously authorized. b) The Authority affirms the findings previously made with respect to the TIF Districts. c) The Modifications conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. d) The Modifications do not require a public hearing, pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 4 of the Act. 3. The Modifications to the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 as set forth in Attachment I to this resolution are hereby approved and adopted. 4. The Modifications to the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 as set forth in Attachment 2 to this resolution are hereby approved and adopted. 5. Subject to approval of the Modifications by the City Council, the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution and a certified copy of the City Council resolution approving and adopting the Modifications, together with Attachments 1 and 2, to the Office of the State Auditor, the Minnesota Department of Revenue, and Wright County. Approved this I Ph day of March, 2015, by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority. ATTEST: Executive Director 2 President ATTACHMENT 1 MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 -36 WITHIN THE CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 I. Background The City of Monticello (the "City ") originally established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 (the "District ") within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project ") and adopted the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") therefor on August 22, 2005; The City and the Authority have now determined a need to modify the TIF Plan in order to amend the estimated use of tax increment; Nothing in this modification is intended to modify or supersede or alter the activities described in the original Redevelopment Program for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. The TIF Plan remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as described in this modification document. II. TIF Plan Modification to TIF District No. 1-36 Use of Tax Increment Shown in Table A. TABLE A Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 Projected Tax Increment Original, Adopted Modification 8/22/2005 No.1 Estimated Tax Increment Revenues (from tax increment generated by the district) Tax increment revenues distributed from the county $680,000 $650,000 Interest and investment earnings $20,000 $50,000 Sales /lease proceeds $0 $0 Market value homestead credit $0 $0 Total Estimated Tax Increment Revenues $700,000 $700,000 Estimated Project/ Financing Costs (to be paid or financed with tax increment) Project costs Land /building acquisition $50,000 $411,768 Site improvements /preparation costs $50,000 $135,776 Utilities $200,000 $0 Other qualifying improvements $200,000 $0 Construction of affordable housing $0 $0 Small city authorized costs, if not already included above $0 $0 Administrative costs $68,000 $20,456 Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs $568,000 $568,000 Estimated financing costs Interest expense $132,000 $132,000 Total Estimated Project/ Financing Costs to be Paid from Tax Increment $700,000 $700,000 Estimated Financing Total amount of bonds to be issued 4 $600,000 $600,000 ATTACHMENT 2 MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 -37 WITHIN THE CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 I. Background The City of Monticello (the "City ") originally established Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 (the "District ") within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Proj ecf') and adopted the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor on April 24, 2006; The City and the Authority have now determined a need to modify the TIF Plan in order to amend the estimated use of tax increment; Nothing in this modification is intended to modify or supersede or alter the activities described in the original Redevelopment Program for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. The TIF Plan remains in full force and effect and is not modified except as described in this modification document. II. TIF Plan Modification to TIF District No. 1 -37 Use of Tax Increment Shown in Table A. TABLE A Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 Projected Tax Increment Original, Adopted Modification 4/24/2006 No.1 Estimated Tax Increment Revenues (from tax increment generated by the district) Tax increment revenues distributed from the county $175,000 $175,000 Interest and investment earnings $0 $0 Sales /lease proceeds $0 $0 Market value homestead credit $0 $0 Total Estimated Tax Increment Revenues $175,000 $175,000 Estimated Project /Financing Costs (to be paid or financed with tax increment) Project costs Land /building acquisition $94,000 $122,113 Site improvements /preparation costs $5,000 $0 Utilities $5,000 $0 Other qualifying improvements $5,000 $0 Construction of affordable housing $0 $0 Small city authorized costs, if not already included above $0 $0 Administrative costs $16,000 $2,887 Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs $125,000 $125,000 Estimated financing costs Interest expense $50,000 $50,000 Total Estimated Project /Financing Costs to be Paid from Tax Increment $175,000 $175,000 Estimated Financing Total amount of bonds to be issued 0 $150,000 $150,000 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA HELD: March 11, 2015 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, Wright County, Minnesota, was duly held at the Monticello City Hall on Wednesday, the 11th day of March, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose, in part, of rescinding modification of the Tan Increment Financing Plans for Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 and adopting a revised modification of the Tan Increment Financing Plans for Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. The following Commissioners were present: and the following were absent: Commissioner moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution and The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Executive Director of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached resolution is a true and correct copy of an extract of minutes of a meeting of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority, duly called and held, as such minutes relate to rescinding modification of the Tan Increment Financing Plans for Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -37 and adopting a revised modification of the Tan Increment Financing Plans for Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -36 and Tan Increment Financing District No. 1 -37. WITNESS my hand as such Executive Director of the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority this 11th day of March, 2015. Executive Director EDA Agenda: 3/11/15 8. Consideration of accepting bids and awarding the contract for the abatement and demolition of the building located at 100 Broadway East. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA is asked to accept bids and award a contract for the abatement of hazardous materials and demolition of the building located at 100 East Broadway Street. Bids were received for the above - referenced project on February 13, 2015. Bid tabulation is provided for the EDA's reference. A total of three bids were received and checked for specified criteria, mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The low bid for the abatement and demolition project was submitted by Veit & Company, Inc. of Rogers, MN, in the amount of $26,253.00. Demolition management and oversight will be provided by WSB pursuant to the executed contract for services authorized by the EDA The tentative start date for demolition preparation activities is April 15th, 2015. The demolition must be complete no later than May 30th, 2015. As previously noted, it is the demolition activity itself that will begin the required three year time window for creation of a new redevelopment TIF district. The building official will therefore be asked to document via certificate of completion the final complete demolition of the building, in addition to the record of the issuance of demolition permit. Al. Budget Impact: Based on the bids received, the estimated cost for demolition work is $26,253.00. The funding for the preceding environmental, structural and TIF Findings, as well as the demolition costs were authorized previously via Interfund Loan Resolution from the EDA General Fund (Resolution 2014 -095). The EDA will note that in the event that any remediation or abatement of is required beyond that which was identified for abatement in the Hazardous Materials survey will require additional funding consideration. A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff have been and will continue to provide support and coordination involved with the 100 East Broadway demolition and potential TIF district process. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to accept bids and award the contract in the amount of $26,253.00 to Veit & Company, Inc for the abatement and demolition of the building located at 100 Broadway East. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 91. required bid specifications. D. SUPPORTING DATA: EDA Agenda: 3/11/15 The contractor providing the lowest bid has met A. Demolition Contract Recommendation Letter, WSB & Associates B. Bid Tabulation C. Contract for Abatement and Demolition, Draft D. WSB Contract for Services E. Previous Action Summary ■ WSB && A,,,,�,�� engineering • planning • environmental • construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 - 541 -4800 Fax: 763 -541 -1700 February 19, 2015 Ms. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Letter of Recommendation Abatement and Demolition of 100 Broadway Street East Monticello, MN WSB Project No. 1494 -94 Dear Ms. Schumann: Bids were received for the above - referenced project on February 13, 2015. A total of three bids were received and checked for specified criteria, mathematical accuracy and tabulated. The low bid for the abatement and demolition project was submitted by Veit & Company, Inc. of Rogers, MN, in the amount of $26,253.00. Please find enclosed a summary of the bids received. WSB recommends that the EDA consider these bids and award a contract in the amount of $26,253.00 to Veit & Company, Inc. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Ryan Spencer Environmental and Remediation Scientist Enclosure cc: Mike Flahave, Veit USA Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com N� N CQ G D z 0 F- Q J D m Q H M� W z z O O O CO C O Q. W r iy U N LO �+ r O L O IH N m >, M O O �= ` >` L r 0 0 Q r � LL a y O p O Z > LL N p L N a v O c N w o a m O � y O Z a O m y a U) 0) -0 a Q O w m m y I i V/ r O N Q r i V/ r O N N L N I C C. � 1 O O O L a o0 O r U E r R � U) (� O O O O O O O O co (O O Lo V V N M G (O co co (A (A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0) N co (1� (1� 0 0 0 0 0 r- Lo 0 co M N (q (q Z Z Z X X X X X X X X X m Q- E O U O U C N C 0 E U a E E 0 0 c 06 Li (n > N CO U C O 0 E 0 c m m c 0 E c O c w 0 U C N Q C NT LL m O J N O c N p A "B && Associates, Inc. engineering • planning • environmental- construction October 9, 2014 Ms. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello, MN 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 701 Xenia Avenue south Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55418 Tel: 783 - 5414800 Fax: 783- 541 -1700 Re: Scope of Work and Cost for Environmental and Demolition Services for the Block 34 Redevelopment project located on Broadway East, Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ms. Schumann: As requested, outlined below is a scope of work and cost estimate to perform the following environmental and demolition services for the Block 34 Redevelopment project: o Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Pre - Demolition Hazardous Materials Building Survey a Demolition Specifications and Quotation Administration © Demolition Oversight The following details the services proposed and associated tasks to be performed as part of the environmental and demolition services. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The Phase I ESA will be performed in general compliance with the ASTM E1527 -13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The Phase 1 ESA will be completed for properties at 100 Broadway East (old Montgomery Farms building), 112 Broadway East (old BL Bikes building), 130 Broadway East (the old "Zoo ") and 119 Yd Street East (DMV). Task 1: Historic Records Review WSB will obtain federal and state regulatory database information for the property from a commercial regulatory vendor to evaluate for potential environmental conditions. This work will not include a detailed review of all the sites listed in the regulatory database searches. The following historical records will be reviewed. Sanborn Fire Insurance Rate Maps p Historic Aerial Photography a City Directories m Historic Topographic Maps m Federal EPA - listed sites including NPL, CERCLIS, RCRA, and ERNS o State MPCA- listed sites including UST, LUST, spills, landfills, and other state listed sites St. Cloud s Mir:,neapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello, MN October 9, 2014 Page 2 • Regulatory file review for applicable sites will be included as required per ASTM E 1527 -13 Assumptions: Based on the property location, this task assumes two regulatory file reviews will be required. Task 2: Interviews WSB will conduct interviews with property representatives (via phone or in person) regarding past and current property use activities. The City and any entity relying on the Phase I ESA will complete a User Questionnaire provided by WSB. The following representatives will be contacted and interviewed (if available): • Current or Past Property Owners o Current Property Management or Maintenance Staff • City Building and Inspection Department • City Fire Department Task 3: Site Reconnaissance WSB will make a direct visual inspection of the property and adjoining properties. It is assumed the City, or its representative, will provide access to all interior and exterior areas of the property. All adjoining properties will be viewed from the public right -of -way. The site reconnaissance will include observation and documentation of the following: • Location of visible above ground or underground storage tanks • Location of chemical or hazardous material storage • Location of water bodies (if present) • Condition of vegetation and exposed soils • General property topography • Photographic documentation Task 4: Phase I ESA Reporting WSB will summarize the results of the Phase I ESA in a final documentation report. This task assumes one round of comment with the City. This task does not include those items considered non -scope by ASTM Standard E1527 -13 such as asbestos, radon, lead -based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural/historic resources, industrial hygiene, indoor air quality, biological agents, or mold sampling and analysis. The report will follow the format described in the ASTM E1527 -13 and shall at a minimum include the following: Supporting documentation upon which the findings and opinions are based • Scope of services performed + A "findings" section which will include any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) The opinion of the environmental professional + Any conclusions drawn from the assessment Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello, MN October 9, 2014 Page 3 Assumptions: WSB will receive authorization from the City prior to completing any work beyond the cost outlined above including but not limited to any of the non -scope items detailed. above. Pre - Demolition Hazardous Material Building Surveys The pre - demolition hazardous material building surveys will be performed in general compliance with applicable regulations for the three properties identified for demolition. The properties identified for possible demolition are located at 100 Broadway East (old Montgomery Farms building), 112 Broadway East (old BL Bikes building) and 130 Broadway East (the old "Zoo') ; however, the properties located at 100 Broadway East is planned for demolition due to the intersection improvements at TH 25 /CSAH 75. The building at 119 31d Street East (DMV) is not planned for demolition, however a hazardous material building survey is proposed to be completed. Task 5: Asbestos Sampling WSB will collect asbestos samples for the above- referenced properties to identify friable and non - friable asbestos - containing materials (ACM) defined by the USEPA, MPCA, and MDH. In addition, WSB will identify ACM that could become friable during demolition activities, and according to State and Federal regulations, would require abatement prior to demolition activities. It is anticipated that destructive sampling methods will be used (except for at the 119 East Yd Street building (DMV)) as destructive asbestos sampling testing methods are needed prior to demolition in order to definitively determine all assumed asbestos containing materials. Assumptions: It is anticipated that a total of 230 bulk asbestos samples /layers will be collected and sent to a fixed -base laboratory for asbestos analysis. Task 6: Lead -Based Paint Sampling WSB will identify surfaces that have the potential to be recycled during the demolition process and collect sample of those surfaces for lead -based paint (LBP) analysis. If LBP is detected, the surfaces will be identified as requiring special management during recycling. Materials likely to be recycled during the demolition process include concrete, metal piping, and miscellaneous metal building components. Assumptions: It is anticipated that 20 paint chip samples will be collected and sent to a fixed - base laboratory for lead analysis. Task 7: Hazardous Materials Inventory WSB will conduct a room -by -room inventory of potentially hazardous materials that will require special handling and disposal prior to demolition. In addition, a hazardous materials inventory will be conducted on all exterior areas of the property. Task 8: Pre - Demolition Final Documentation and Reporting WSB will summarize the results of each building in a Pre - Demolition Hazardous Materials Building Survey Report. At a minimum, the report will include the following: • Scope of work; • Sampling methods and procedures; o Asbestos and LBP sample location figure; Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello, MN October 9, 2014 Page 4 Room -by -room hazardous materials inventory; Investigation results; and • Conclusions and recommendations. Assumptions: This task assumes access to all property buildings will be provided by the City and one report review by the City. Demolition Specifieations and Quotation Administration The Demolition Specifications will be prepared for the properties identified for possible demolition located at 100 Broadway East (old Montgomery Farms building), 112 Broadway East (old BL Bikes building) and 130 Broadway East (the old "Zoo ") Task 9: Demolition Specifications WSB will prepare demolition specifications for the following: • Demolition of the commercial buildings located at 100, 112, and 130 Broadway East Street; • Obtain all necessary permits and utility disconnections; and • Restoration of the sites with topsoil and seed. Task 10: Quotation Administration WSB will administer the quotation process and prepare a recommendation to award the demolition contract based on the received quotations. WSB will assume the Contractor will obtain all necessary permits (including but not limited to demolition and hazardous or regulated waste removal and disposal). WSB will assume the Contractor will also be responsible for the coordination of all utility disconnections. Assumptions: It is anticipated that the costs to demolish the buildings will be $100,000 or under based on conversations with demolition contractors. WSB will provide the City with an updated cost estimate to complete the demolition following the completion of the pre - demolition hazardous materials building surveys. If the updated cost estimate exceeds $100,000, WSB will work with the City to revise the scope of work to complete this task. Demolition Oversight The Demolition Oversight will be completed for the properties planned for demolition located at 100, 112, and 130 Broadway Street East. Task 11: Demolition Coordination WSB will coordinate with contractors to ensure all demolition activities including hazardous material removal and disposal are performed in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines. WSB will also coordinate with contractors to obtain documentation for final reporting purposes and will maintain communication with the City regarding the demolition schedule. Assumptions: This task assumes the abatement and demolition contractor will secure all required permits. Task 12: Demolition Oversight Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello, MN October 9, 2014 Page 5 WSB will provide oversight during all demolition activities to assess for unknown environmental conditions. WSB will conduct a walkthrough prior to demolition to ensure all regulated materials are removed and properly disposed of at a permitted landfill facility. WSB will also conduct a final walkthrough to ensure the Site is properly graded, seeded, and is free of demolition debris. Assumptions: This task assumes the Site structures will be demolished and removed in six consecutive days. Task 13: Demolition Final Documentation and Reporting WSB will summarize the results of the demolitions services in a final documentation report. At a minimum, the report will include the following: a Site location map; • Scope of work; o Regulated waste removal documentation; a Demolition notifications and permits; a Backfilling and seeding documentation; and a Photographic documentation. Assumptions: This task assumes one review by the City. Total Cost and Schedule The cost to perform the described Environmental and Demolition Services is a lump sum of $31,793. The following presents the cost breakdown for each service presented in this proposal: Project Task Lump Sum Cost Phase I Environmental Site Assessment $5,626 Pre - Demolition Hazardous Material Building Surveys $13,497 Demolition Specifications and Quotation Administration $5,154 Demolition Oversight $7,516 Total Project Cost $31,793 If additional work is required beyond the summarized scope above, WSB will receive authorization from the City prior to initiating the work. It is anticipated that authorization will be received at the EDA meeting on October 8, 2014. WSB will be in attendance at this meeting. Upon authorizatioir, WSB will schedule the work and deliver the associated reports by November 15, 2014. If you wish to authorize this work, please sign below and submit a copy to WSB. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Ina Ryan Spencer Environmental and Remediation Scientist WSB & Associates, Inc. Jamie Wallerstedt, PE Project Manager Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello, MN October 9, 2014 Page 6 I hereby authorize the scop above sc. C of work, schedule, and cost. _ President />0X /// �— Date aA�KIJ&j J�/ Exec(Moirector Date AGREEMENT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGREEMENT made this day of , 20__, between the CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "EDA "), and , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of ( "Contractor "). IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS HEREIN CONTAINED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the "Contract Documents ", all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein: A. This Agreement B. Bid Documents and Specifications dated January 14, 2015. C. Quote dated In the event of conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts with Contract Document "A" having the first priority and Contract Document "C" having the last priority. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR. The Contractor shall provide the goods, services, and perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDA. The City shall pay the Contractor the sum of $ inclusive of sales tax. 4. SOFTWARE LICENSE. If the equipment provided by the Contractor pursuant to this Contract contains software, including that which the manufacturer may have embedded into the hardware as an integral part of the equipment, the Contractor shall pay all software licensing fees. The Contractor shall also pay for all software updating fees for a period of one year following cutover. The Contractor shall have no obligation to pay for such fees thereafter. Nothing in the software license or licensing agreement shall obligate the City to pay any additional fees as a condition for continuing to use the software. 5. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign, sublet, or transfer any interest or obligation in this Contract without the prior written consent of the other party, and then only upon such terms and conditions as both parties may agree to and set forth in writing. 6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Contractor shall complete its obligations on or before Contract and Owner recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that Owner will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed. The parties also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal or arbitration proceeding the actual loss suffered by Owner if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, Owner and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty), Contractor shall pay Owner $ for each calendar day that expires after the time specified in above for completion until the Work is complete. Daily costs are based on MnDOT Table 1807 -1, "Schedule of Liquidated Damages as follows: TABLE 1807 -1 SCHEDULE OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Original Contract Amount Charge Per Cal. Day M From More Than M To and Including M 0 25,000 75 25,000 50,000 125 50,000 100,000 250 100,000 500,000 500 500,000 1,000,000 750 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,250 2,000,000 5,000,000 1,750 5,000,000 10,000,000 2,500 10,000,000 - - -- 3,000 7. PAYMENT. When the obligations of the Contractor have been fulfilled, inspected, and accepted, the EDA will pay the Contractor. Such payment shall be made not later than thirty (30) days after completion, certification thereof, and invoicing by the Contractor. 8. PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.25, Subdivision 4a, the Contractor must pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Contractor's receipt of payment from the EDA for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Contractor must pay interest of one and one -half percent (1' /2 %) per month or any part of a month to subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the Contractor shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Contractor shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS. This Agreement may be terminated by the EDA at any time upon discovery by the EDA that the prime contractor or subcontractor has submitted a false statement under oath verifying compliance with any of the minimum criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. § 16C.285, subd. 3. 10. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. A. Contractor has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and other related data identified in the Contract Documents. B. Contractor has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. C. Contractor is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. Contractor has carefully studied all: (1) reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions in or relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the Site (except Underground Facilities) which have been identified in the Contract Documents and (2) reports and drawings of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, if any, at the site. E. Contractor has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for doing so) all additional or supplementary examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data concerning conditions (surface, subsurface, and Underground Facilities) at or contiguous to the Site which may affect cost, progress, or performance of the Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor, including any specific means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction expressly required by the Contract Documents, and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. F. Contractor does not consider that any further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. G. Contractor is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by Owner and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents. H. Contractor has correlated the information known to Contractor, information and observations obtained from visits to the Site, reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, and all additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data with the Contract Documents. I. Contractor has given Engineer written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that Contractor has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by Engineer is acceptable to Contractor. J. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. K. Subcontracts: (1) Unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall, upon receipt of the executed Contract Documents, submit in writing to the Owner the names of the Subcontractors proposed for the work. Subcontractors may not be changed except at the request or with the consent of the Owner. (2) The Contractor is responsible to the Owner for the acts and omissions of the Contractor's subcontractors, and of their direct and indirect employees, to the same extent as the Contractor is responsible for the acts and omissions of the Contractor's employees. (3) The Contract Documents shall not be construed as creating any contractual relation between the Owner, the Engineer, and any Subcontractor. (4) The Contractor shall bind every Subcontractor by the terms of the Contract Documents. 10. WORKER'S COMPENSATION. If Contractor does public work, the Contractor shall obtain and maintain for the duration of this Contract, statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance as required under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY. Contractor shall obtain the following minimum insurance coverage and maintain it at all times throughout the life of the Contract, with the EDA included as an additional name insured: Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate, products and completed operations Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate Products and Completed Operations Insurance shall be maintained fro a minimum period of three (3) years after final payment and Contractor shall continue to provide evidence of such coverage to City on an annual basis during the aforementioned period; or if any reason Contractor's work ceases before final payment, for a minimum period of three (3) years from the date Contractor ceases work. Property Damage Liability Insurance shall include coverage for the following hazards: X (Explosion) C (Collapse) U (Underground) Contractual Liability (identifying the contract): Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate Personal Injury, with Employment Exclusion deleted: $2,000,000 aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non - owned, hired): Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 each accident Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence 12. PERNHTS AND LICENSES; RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees therefore, and give all notices necessary and incidental to the construction and completion of the Project. The EDA will obtain all necessary rights -of -way and easements. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for any construction delay resulting from the EDA not timely obtaining rights -of -way or easements. 13. DATA PRACTICES/RECORDS. A. All data created, collected, received, maintained, or disseminated for any purpose in the course of this Contract is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state statute, or any state rules adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. B. All books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, relative to this Contract are subject to examination by the City. 14. WARRANTY. The Contractor guarantees that all new equipment warranties as specified within the quote shall be in full force and transferred to the EDA upon payment by the EDA. The Contractor shall be held responsible for any and all defects in workmanship, materials, and equipment which may develop in any part of the contracted service, and upon proper notification by the EDA shall immediately replace, without cost to the EDA, any such faulty part or parts and damage done by reason of the same in accordance with the bid specifications. If the Contract requires, or the Contractor desires, the use of any design, device, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Contractor shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed with the Owner. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection with the Project agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and defend the Owner for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement. 15. INDEMNITY. The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the EDA harmless from any claim made by third parties as a result of the services performed by it. In addition, the Contractor shall reimburse the EDA for any cost of reasonable attorney's fees it may incur as a result of any such claims. 16. WAIVER In the particular event that either party shall at any time or times waive any breach of this Contract by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or any succeeding breach of this Contract by either party, whether of the same or any other covenant, condition, or obligation. 17. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of Minnesota govern the interpretation of this Contract. 18. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, term, or condition of this Contract is found to be or become unenforceable or invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions, terms, and conditions of this Contract, unless such invalid or unenforceable provision, term, or condition renders this Contract impossible to perform. Such remaining terms and conditions of the Contract shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to operate as the parties' entire contract. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract represents the entire agreement of the parties and is a final, complete, and all inclusive statement of the terms thereof, and supersedes and terminates any prior agreement(s), understandings, or written or verbal representations made between the parties with respect thereto. OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO And: Address for giving notices: City of MONTICELLO City Hall, 505 Walnut MONTICELLO, MN 55362 an Its: Address for giving notices: License No.: (where applicable) EDA Agenda: 3/11/15 EXHIBIT E: Previous EDA Action Summary For the EDA's reference, previous actions to date regarding or related to 100 East Broadway building and property: A. Adoption of Resolution 2014 -095, a resolution Authorizing Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Costs in Connection with Proposed Block 34 Tax Increment Financing District — October, 2014 B. Approval of contracts for service for environmental analysis and demolition management, structural analysis, and redevelopment finding analysis for properties on Block 34 —October ' 2014 C. Acceptance of the work product reports for environmental analysis, structural analysis, and redevelopment finding analysis for properties on Block 34 — December, 2014 D. Authorization of preparation of demolition specifications for 100 East Broadway. E. Approve specifications and authorize advertisement of bids for demolition of EDA - owned building at 100 East Broadway — January, 2015 F. Adoption of Resolution EDA- 2015 -001, a Resolution Approving the Elimination of Parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -22 Within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 - January, 2015 G. Adoption of a Letter of TIF Analysis Findings for 100 Broadway Street East, Monticello, Minnesota, dated December 2, 2014, and adoption of Resolution EDA - 2015 -002 Designating a Building as Structurally Substandard Within Redevelopment Project No. 1 — February, 2015 1 EDA Agenda: 03/11/15 9. Director's Report (JO /AS) Solar Energy Update Staff has been working to understand the complexities associated with the renewable energy mandates and resulting programs related to solar energy, including the solar garden proposals. Staff have been made aware of at least three solar energy garden proposals within the annexation area for the City, including the large proposal previously noted at the former Silver Springs site. Since learning of the proposals, City staff have participated in discussions with Monticello Township, the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board and Wright County regarding this topic, indicating that there is much information to review and analyze in preparation for responding to the issue. As previously noted, Wright County's zoning ordinance and the ordinance adopted for the MOAA do not allow solar energy uses as a principal use. The City is also working through its ordinance as related to principal and accessory use solar, as well. However, there is a language in state statute which appears to allow for siting of large electric energy generating facilities (such as a 50 megawatt solar facility) outside of local land use authority, through a review process managed by the Public Utilities Commission. In any case, the siting of a large solar garden facility or multiple large facilities within the MOAA will create unanticipated economic and land use impacts which require further review and analysis. Staff provided an overview of the issue to the City Council on February 12th, 2015. Rep. Jim Newberger was also present and described legislation he has proposed to provide County - level review authority for these larger solar facilities. The City Council's direction was to direct staff to prepare a letter supporting the legislation. Since that time, the City has received information relating to Xcel Energy's comments to the Public Utilities Commission regarding solar garden programs. These comments indicate that like the City, Xcel is also trying to fully understand the impacts of the solar garden development. A copy of Xcel's comments to the PUC are included for reference. Staff will continue to provide updates to the IEDC on this item as more information is learned. CSAH 75 /TH 25 Improvements and Block 34 Demolition The City of Monticello continues to plan and prepare for improvements at the intersection of CSAH 75 and TH 25. It is anticipated that construction of the improvements will begin with site preparation in April. EDA Agenda: 03/11/15 A series of informational meetings is planned for the intersection construction. These will include a first community open house, with smaller construction progress meetings scheduled thereafter. TH 25 Expansion The TH 25 expansion project begins in April and is led by MnDOT. The project will repave Highway 25 between Interstate 94 and County Road 106/85' Street SE, extend the four -lane segment of Highway 25 to County Road 106/85' Street NE, upgrade signals and redesign the Highway 25 /County Road 106/85' Street SE intersection, and improve motorist and pedestrian safety. The project is led by MnDOT. You can get more detailed information at the project's website: mndot.gov /d3 /monti. Work is anticipated to begin in April and be completed in September. A MnDOT open house was held on Thursday, March 5 at Monticello Community Center. Interchange Planning Study The City Council approved moving forward with an interchange planning study on Monday, February 23rd. The agenda item, including information on the planning process, can be found by visiting the Council's February 23rd a eg nda page. 2